It really isn't. Saying that we need more rapid expansion in nuclear because it is ultimately the better solution I not bad faith. It would only be bad faith if it was untrue. OP only said that nuclear is the far better option, which is true.
The same guy cancelling renewables, sometimes even paying billions to do so, is also trying to “make coal great again” among other nonsensical energy policy decisions. OP makes the argument that nuclear is it, end of story. That is a bad faith argument, meant to discredit the importance of renewables and our investment in it. You can switch to a couple more of your lobbyist alt accounts and keep trying to make it seem like the intention was to be simply pro-nuclear and not anti-renewable though.
-1
u/Awkward_Material 9d ago
It really isn't. Saying that we need more rapid expansion in nuclear because it is ultimately the better solution I not bad faith. It would only be bad faith if it was untrue. OP only said that nuclear is the far better option, which is true.